IIRC, each membership country pays a certain amount of money each year to the UN, depending on its size. Technically, the US’s “membership fees” should pay for 25% of the general budget and 31% of the peacekeeping expenses. However, the United States has not exactly been a regular payer, and has racked up a debt of 1.8 billion dollars (2001 figure) to the UN.
In the Korean War, the U.N., at the behest of the U.S., called for assisting the Republic of Korea (South K.) in resisting aggression from the People’s Democratic Republic of Korea (North K.). The U.S. supplied generals and the bulk of the troops, with significant contingents of Canadians, Aussies, and others bolstering what we put in. And the job was to restore the status quo ante and keep North Korea from being in a state where it could repeat the aggression. Why MacArthur was fired was because he refused to carry out the policies decided by the U.N. (under strong U.S. influence) and which he was ordered to carry out by his own Commander-in-Chief.
So the U.N. is not completely powerless – it can raise an army to carry out its will, with the consent of its member states.
So which is it? Does the UN “boss everyone around” or is it an ineffectual wet noodle that can be defied at will? Should it be made weaker or stronger?
It’s easy to focus on the negative with the United Nations… at least try and recognise some of the good that it has done. Why does the UN have any business being involved in international security? Well what exactly is the alternative? A system of secret treaties like the one that led to World War I? Perhaps you would rather emasculate the UN and end up with the League of Nations (who were so instrumental in using sanctions and reprimands to prevent WWII from happening). Wait, you mean its pointless to have a forum for international conflict resolution unless that forum has a way of backing up its decisions? :smack:
You know what they say, ask a stupid question…
And have them go on strike every two weeks?
France cares about herself, just like any other country. Besides, what the hell does it matter where the UN is hosted?
I’m leaning toward the “ineffectual wet noodle” right now, although that might be a blessing in disguise. Apparently some people can’t understand why it is important for an organisation like the UN to exist… (and some people really hate it when they think their nation’s sovereignty is in question)
I’m not the first to point out that the OP is confused. The complaint is that we shouldn’t “allow the UN to boss everyone around” but the supporting detail is to the effect that the UN is ineffective, inefficient, and fails to achieve anything.
[d12, you are right to be a tad worried about your debating tournament. All your arguments point to a conclusion which is diametrically opposed to the one you apparently wish to advocate. Think again.]
The UN can only do what its member states allow it to do. Affirmative action requires a positive resolution of the Security Council, and five world powers have a veto in the Security Council. Hence nothing can be done which is not, at a minimum, at least acceptable to those five states. Frequently this means that nothing at all can be done.
At the moment it suits the US administration to bellyache about the ineffectual nature of the UN, and its reluctance to take action to enforce its views. This is a posture. The US administration would be horrified at any serious proposal to make the UN more effective, since this must entail a reduction of the veto power of the US (and the other states with veto power).
During the cold war, the superpower balance functioned to control conflict – wars *within]/I] one of the superpower camps were contained, and wars between the superpower camps were unthinkable. This mechanism no longer applies.
The only alternatives are
(a) that the US acts as the world’s policman,
(b) that the UN is strengthened, or
© that no attempt is made to control conflict.
I have already suggested that (b) is not acceptable to the US (or to other veto states), but neither of the other alternatives are immediately attractive to the US. Acting as the world’s policeman is not a role which, historically, the US has wished to undertake; arguably they are doing so in the present crisis with Iraq, but it is highly controversial and, if it remains acceptable to the American people, it will only be because vital US interests are perceived to be at stake. The US is certainly not going to take on a “police” role in other disputes unless its own interests are involved. Apart from being unpopular at home, it would be ruinously expensive.
At the same time the US does not want to allow conflicts to be uncontrolled. The US and its citizens have enormous investments and interests outside the US, and they have perhaps a bigger interest than any other country in a peaceful and prosperous world order. And, if nothing else, allowing local and regional conflicts to go unchecked until they expand to a point where they can be seen (by the US electorate) to threaten US interests and then intervening militarily is neither the most efficient nor the most effective way of protecting US interests.
This is a conundrum that the US hasn’t really solved yet. Where do its best interests lie in this matter?
**I’m curious as to who exactly foots the majority of the U.N.'s bill? **
Each member nation is required to pay 0.01 or 0.001% of the budget (this is all just off the top of my head) and it works out so that the poorest countries still pay $102,000USD a year. This is a severe disadvantage to any of the smaller countries.
I think it is quite strong enough, but there are roadblocks to its effectiveness because of inconsistant and shifting political ideology inherent in democratic systems. Sometimes this is a blessing, sometimes it is not. I do not honestly know which case we are in right now.
During World War II, Churchill’s government won a vote of confidence. The circumstances surrounding the motion of no confidence that was defeated are interesting: the man making the motion argued that Churchill had unduly interfered with the generals and admirals charged with fighting the war; the man seconding the motion argued that Churchill had lost the confidence of Commons by not interfering enough with the incompetent generals and admirals who were charged with fighting the war! 
Sounds like that’s the problem here!